... while also saying that global companies should be freer to do as they please, though when he was doing that, he called it "being business-friendly" and "cutting red tape."
Well, at least he was giving some indication that he understood that Americans were fed up with free trade and globalism. None of the other candidates understood this. Perhaps you can tell me why Trump, of all people, has a better understanding of America and Americans than all the other candidates? Why couldn't a single one of them understand that Americans are fed up with all the BS?
He had lots of flags and rhetoric at his rallies, but when you scratch the surface and ask "what's he actually promising to do? Will it help or hurt the country?" the veneer comes off.
True, but again, at least he put the effort in, which is more than what the other candidates did. That's why he is in the White House, and they're not.
The two things are linked.
If the US follows the isolationist examples from history, it will end the same way: the US will become irrelevant as other great powers rise and become the ones that can dictate terms.
The US has never been isolationist. Neutrality is not the same thing as isolationism.
Besides, even if we call the Interwar period "isolationist," the US did not become irrelevant during WW2. The Allied powers practically begged us to join in.
Following the example of Tokugawa Japan is a good way to get the equivalent of Admiral Perry sailing up with his gunboats while you "negotiate" treaties with the great powers that emerged while you walled yourself off.
Not the same thing. Not even close.
Which presidents do you think didn't make the American people their top priority?
Not anyone recent that I can tell.
Think of the rhetoric that we hear. Millions of unemployed and homeless Americans out there, and very few people care at all. But Trump issues a travel ban (which only affects non-Americans), and suddenly everyone starts screaming like a pack of banshees. Tell me where their priorities are.
Or when the subject of free trade is brought up, we keep hearing about how protectionism will damage relations with other countries - even if it's done for the benefit of America. It's obvious that when such statements are made, the American people are not their top priority.
It's the same thing regarding America's role in NATO or our general practice of interventionism and acting as the world's policeman. People keep saying that America has some sort of responsibility to the rest of the world, while neglecting our responsibility to ourselves. Tell me how this constitutes making the American people our government's top priority.
I haven't ignored America's problems. I've posted here before about how the economic recovery might have been okay when looking at state-by-state GDP or unemployment, but at a more detailed level, the recovery created new winners and missed helping a lot of people who were disadvantaged.
Fair enough, although the problems are not just due to economics. As with anything, America's poor economy right now is more a symptom of a deeper problem, rooted in apathy, complacency, malaise, myopia, and a general mistrust Americans have in their government and even in each other.
I happen to think that if our government showed a greater commitment to ensuring economic justice, it would probably go a long way in restoring the faith and confidence of the American people.
What Trump has done is appeal to Americans who remember times when America was on much more solid ground. Americans remember that their country was once great, and now Trump promised to "make America great
again." The question that should be asked is: Why don't people think America is still great anymore? What has happened between now and the time that we used to be "great"?
Of course, Trump lied about it, and I'm not sure what he's doing now. But the real issue now is whether anyone can truly grasp exactly why there is so much despair and melancholy in the country that Trump was able to capitalize on it and gain political office.
This is not something that should be taken lightly. Remember, this is not about Trump. Trump probably won't last, but there will be others who may take the same approach. Trump should act as a warning to both parties that they'd better get their laundry in gear, or else you're going to get more Trump-like candidates coming out the woodwork.
He challenges the status quo, sure, but there are good and bad ways to do that. This is what I was getting at with my comment about burning the whole thing down.
It's one thing to be upset with your landlord. It's another thing to get back at him by setting your apartment on fire.
There might be those who feel that way. Every country has its share of anarchists and revolutionaries who might want to burn the whole thing down. There are riots when people want to burn down their own neighborhoods. I'm not condoning such things, but it's easy for people living comfortably to pass judgment on those who are angry at injustice.
I don't think Trump will burn the whole thing down anyway. In some ways, his antics are calling more attention to the inner workings of government itself, which may cause other scabs to be opened and we might have a more transparent government when all of this is said and done. Perhaps this could lead to major reforms in how the government operates and does business in the future, so there may be a silver lining.
So kind of like this:
xkcd: Free
"His health care cuts will kill my grandmother, but I'm willing to overlook that because he wears a patriotic hat."
I think you're making fun of it because you're only looking at it on a superficial level.
I don't like the health care bill either, but I didn't think Obamacare was any great shakes either. But the health care cuts won't kill your grandmother. It's those who have the equipment and expertise to save your grandmother's life, yet refuse to do so because they're not getting paid enough money.
Frankly, I don't actually see that much of demonizing Trump supporters.
Oh, it's there.
What I see is people calling out Trump and his platform for its bad ideas and explicit racism, and legitimate criticism of the real but small group of geniuine white supremacists in the "alt-right", which Fox News and Breitbart spin into "see? They're calling you a stupid racist for supporting Trump."
I don't follow Fox News or Breitbart that closely, so you could be right. But you yourself mentioned the voters and remarked that people outside the US were questioning how well they knew the American people. If they're only looking at it on a superficial level, then there might be a lot of things they miss.
If you aren't seeing reasoned arguments, then I have to ask: where are you looking?
Where should I look? This refers again to those who make assumptions about why so many people voted for Trump. Remarks about the voters being stupid, as well as paranoid delusions that "the Russians did it!" There have been a few thoughtful essays I've seen which give greater insight and go deeper into what's actually going on and taking a more accurate pulse of the political direction in this country. So, it's not completely devoid of reason, but let's face it, the majority of the rhetoric out there is pointless nonsense, meant to distract the public and take attention away from real issues.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying that America has no problems; it has some pretty deep and serious ones. What I can't see is why someone would seriously believe that Trump's the person to solve any of them.
Well, he's not, but that's beside the point.
The real question we should be asking is: Why did so many people choose a guy like Trump over all of the other pre-approved "acceptable" candidates? How could a field of candidates be so riddled with garbage that a person like Donald Trump could best them all? How does that happen?
The elephant in the living room that no one seems to be discussing is that Donald Trump is President of These United States because neither party could find anyone else who was better. That's the sad truth here.
